Normally a client tells their lawyer if they've committed the crime. That's what I'm talking about, not whether or not you can stand up in court make everyone think they're innocent when they're not.

Really? I wouldn't have thought that this was the case, but I'm happy to stand corrected if it is so.

I am still early in my degree, but this has been the subject of a wifely grilling or two already. For me, there is no question: If I do go into criminal law, I will give any client that I might have the most vigorous defence I can possibly muster within the laws and ethics that govern me.

That's the role of a defence lawyer, without which the criminal justice system becomes immeasurably weaker and less fair.

I began my legal career in criminal defence and wanted nothing more than to be a defence lawyer but my fear of public speaking stopped me achieving this goal

I assisted in trials involving accusations of child molestation, murder (some well known), rape, down to petty crimes.

For me being a defence lawyer was never about the individual client per sae but rather each persons right to a fair trial. Every person is entitled to procedural fairness and you cannot have this without the right to enter a plea of not guilty or have your mitigating reasons for committing a crime presented for a magistrate/judge to consider before handing down a sentence.

We made it clear to a client when we first met with them that we did not want to know if they committed the crime unless they intended to enter a plea of guilty. Ethically a lawyer should not represent someone who has admitted guilt but is pleading not guilty (unless there is a defence such as provocation or diminished responsibility due to insanity for example). I know that not all criminal lawyers adhere to this requirement though which is perhaps one of many reasons why the profession is ranked as one of the most untrustworthy.

I was taught to disengage from my emotions when I assisted on a child molestation case. It was hard to do but when you read the same statements over and over you do become desensitised to what you are reading. This training is probably one reasons why I sometimes come across as hard when dealing with my family law clients. I have no emotional attachment to the subject area and to do my job properly I have to disengage (not always easy and I have had two clients in my career who had me in tears during their appointments due to what they told me).

Our adversarial system demands the right to a defence and I for one am damn glad that this is the case because if I am charged with something that I have not done I want the best defence possible.

If I do go into criminal law, I will give any client that I might have the most vigorous defence I can possibly muster within the laws and ethics that govern me.

I couldn't be a defence lawyer (or any type), but that is more because I wouldn't fit the job, not because I would feel wrong defending 'bad' people. I met someone who was convicted of murder because they didn't get the most vigorous defence, and were acquitted after spending some time in jail. The role of a defence lawyer is a pretty important one in my books, I'm sure many people thought that guy was 'obviously guilty'.

The HuggleBib is not "just another" baby bib. Sure, your child may be a messy eater who gets more food ON them rather than IN them, so you dread cleaning after feeding times! Well the HuggleBib is THE best solution to help with all these daily tasks!